|
|||
 |
|||
| Wednesday, June 27, 2007 Bush/Cheney I worry about the pundits who spew forth hatred of the Democratic Party. I recently read where that man from Arkansas (the millionaire) who tried to take down Bill Clinton and spent around 2 million of his own money to do so, now sees what a good president Clinton was and has said so publicly. We visited his library and it was such an eye-opener on how well we did under his leadership. If all the scandal, etc., had not taken place, things would have been so different. But there again, the Republicans were adamant about undoing him. I watched the hearings in the House committee and was appalled by some of the things that were said and done. Then someone reported on the misdeeds of some of those Republicans and their misdeeds were worse. When we have someone in office that is doing harm to our country, I feel it's our duty to demand they leave that office. Congress should be a better watchdog and quit being so partisan. Who was it that said, "government of the people, for the people and by the people." We need people like you to keep reporting the truth. Thank you for your report today. A Tax Payer, Voter and Patriot, Joyce H. Regrettable The treatment of those UVa students was regrettable, and the Virginia anti-brandishing laws should be changed. It is perfectly reasonable to be concerned about a student who is brandishing a weapon as a threat, but as an investigation revealed that this is not what was going on, there should have been no problem at all. However, Virginia law [18.2-282(A)] prohibits brandishing in a manner that could reasonably induce fear, regardless of whether there was any actual intent to induce fear. It applies not only to weapons but also to "any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not". So the problem with the UVa incident appears to be with the legislative branch, and not with the executive branch. The legislators did consider the intent of the brandisher to induce fear when crafting the protection for police officers against lawsuits arising from injuries or death sustained by someone being arrested for brandishing. However the first part of the act, against brandishing itself, considers only the intent to brandish the object, and not the intent to induce fear. I was shocked to read in the law that if this enactment had been by younger children with cap guns, on an elementary school playground, or on any other public playground near a school, the offense would have been much worse--a felony rather than a misdemeanor. It is no coincidence that the avoidable tragedy at Virginia Tech followed a decision by that school to deny students the right to arm themselves, thereby leaving students defenseless against an attack by an armed assailant. Were that policy not in place, lives would have been saved. It is reasonable to ask whether gun control saves lives on average, it certainly produces rare results such as the mass fatalities at Virginia Tech, however in many smaller incidents it may save lives or it may cost lives. But safety and liberty are often conflicting goals, and we should be at least as concerned about liberty as about safety. One of the foundation principles of liberty is the right to keep and bear arms. Democracy promotes peace because democracy approximates the result that would be obtained through conflict, but avoiding the horrors of conflict. Tyranny opposes the "peaceful consensus" by imposing a result that the people, if armed, would rebel against. The second amendment is unusual as most other amendments refer to a limited right, for example the first amendment (before expansion in the light of the fourteenth amendment) limits only the power of Congress, the third allows exceptions during time of war, fourth amendment rights only apply against "unreasonable" searches and there are probable cause exceptions, the fifth amendment rights of life, liberty, and property are subject to due process limitations. But the second amendment simply says "shall not be infringed" without any due process limitation, reasonableness limitation, or limitation to any particular branch or level of government (on its face it even appears to restrict infringement by private citizens). When an unlimited right is threatened, this implies an even greater threat to the other rights. In any case, I have more trust in government when it is not afraid of the militia--the body of the people, armed and trained. So long as the nation is armed and trained, there are limits on tyranny. --Shack Overstated The comparisons of Bush to Hitler are overstated. Bush is NOT Hitler. Hitler, for example, wrote a book. --Paul F. Friday, June 22, 2007 Positive Law I wonder if George Bush has ever read the Ten Commandments!? Positive law will always fail. I was educated to believe that the State was benevolent but many years ago trashed that idea. Now conscience will not allow me to be blindly obedient. I can't count the number of times I've heard people whom I've respected say, "I have nothing to fear; I haven't done anything wrong" or "He's a Brother so we have to trust that he's doing the right thing". B.S., actions speak louder than words. --Mike in Colorado Unacceptable John, Although I am a supporter of President Bush, I believe that this is unacceptable. What can I do? My senators are already at odds with Bush over this (Senator Kennedy and Kerry D-Mass). No, I do not regret my decision on voting for Bush, he did the right thing. However, I recently changed my mind regarding his handling of the war. The opportunity is ripe for him to exit the war while Al Q and the "insurgents" (who are actually patriots) have broken a truce and are at war, and he has not taken this opportunity while the iron is hot. One way or another, we are going to lose control over Iraq. How many that die between then and now is our choice. Time changes everything, just look at Vietnam today. Americans can travel there and go on vacation, even though we lost the war. --Shawn M. Enemy Combatants Thank you for your article. Recently I have read a number of articles on the same subject. It has me thinking. With the government having the ability to label any person as a threat to the nation, how long will it take before they start sending the disabled to 'Camps'? I'm disabled, meaning that I am not an asset to the country. In fact I could be seen as a drain on government spending. After all, once the government takes away liberty from foreigners it doesn't take long before they turn on their own citizens. --Jeff F. Dangers With all deserved respect for your good thinking in this piece, those sound principles have to be balanced by the dangers to this stilll very good country seriously threatened by organized mordern terrorism. We don't want, and caannot afford, another 9/11. Our Homeland Security and other government agencies must have sufficient powers to ascertain potential dangers and prevent them, as they are, so far, doing successfully. Some due,hopefully temporary, sacrifices of civil liberties are necessary. Our governments, Federal and state, have to walk a difficult "tightrope"! It seems to me that they are. --John M. Nice Article Nicely written article. My only dig is that you are a bit late to the game. But better late... As far as dictatorship goes, it appears to be 'game, set, match'. That is, it is already too late. All it will take will be implementation. I don't see any in congress (either the neocons or neolibs) particularly interested in challenging the laws you cited. And, of course, the media really is owned and won't go anywhere near the topic. Many of us who view 9/11 as our modern Reichstag equivalent (in nearly all respects) are reasonably sure that another false flag is likely looming. Probably concurrent to an attack on Iran. And that will be endgame. --Richard W. The "War On Terror" I might indicate that I am a conservative. Usually Republican and definitely for small government. So what can we do? Can we sue the TSA? Certainly voting seems to be of little help. --David C. The Case At Hand Great article! It was forwarded to me by a friend, and it’s truly scary how close we are to losing many constitutional freedoms. That friend also included an explanation of the Hegelian Dialectic, which embodies the principle technique at work here, not only in Hitler’s case, but perhaps the case at hand, and unquestionably on many “hot button” issues of our time. The technique is as old as politics itself, and I know you are familiar with it. It consists of a three step process: Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis. (1) Thesis: Revolutionaries in government create economic chaos, shortages in food and fuel, confiscatory taxation, a crisis in education, the threat of war, or other diversions to condition a populace. Thus the first step is to create a problem. (2) Antithesis: Revolutionaries go to great lengths to generate opposition to the problem (fear, panic, hysteria). (3) Synthesis: Revolutionaries offer THE solution to the problem created in step one—a radical change which would have been impossible to impose on the people without the proper psychological conditioning achieved in steps one and two. I can see this principle clearly in numerous areas of public information dissemination, and most have reached at least to step two, and some to step three, in America. Your example of the terror attacks of 9/11 is slightly atypical in that an actual attack occurred, but alarmists have nevertheless used it to justify depriving us of many freedoms (like taking my toothpaste onto an airplane). Other offhand examples: The Endangered Species Act (ESA): (Thesis—species going extinct; Antithesis—fear of losing species; Synthesis—a law ignoring private and public needs to protect obscure minnows, and thereby grind civilization to a halt) The Revolutionaries are basically anti-human, anti-progress individuals and institutions who hijacked the otherwise noble concept of “endangered species” not to help species, but to further a more sinister agenda. The American public and most of its leaders have been completely duped by this propaganda. Species have been going extinct since time began, and indeed it does seem prudent to intervene when humankind has the means. Whatever, the engendered “crisis” was loss of species “that can never be recovered, and who knows what benefits mankind might be losing?” It sounds good, and a crisis was created. The Act itself was the only solution. One need not look very deeply to discover that the ESA has been almost a total failure in dealing with loss of species (dozens are listed annually for every one recovered from endangered status), but it has been a great tool to shut down dam projects; eliminate or hinder highway projects (our Interstate system would be impossible to construct today because of the ESA); close the national forests (and many private lands) to logging and other uses; and even deprive our troops of up to 90% of their training areas on some military bases because of various frogs, salamanders, lizards, and insects, not to mention unknown plants. Moreover, the ESA is the single greatest hindrance to actual resource-based conservation. In the USA, woe to the landowner on whose property resides (or is suspected to reside) an endangered species—their land becomes a de facto property seizure by the U.S. government, since it is essentially condemned for most human use, all without compensation to the landowner. Overseas, every other nation’s conservation programs are hindered by the ESA’s unilaterally-imposed import restrictions, which deny sovereign nations the right to determine the status of their own indigenous animals (and plants, though it’s the sport-harvested animal restrictions that are most odious and cause the most damage to the very creatures they are supposed to protect by reducing their value and the incentive to protect them and promote their welfare). Global Warming: (Thesis—the world is getting warmer [again?]; Antithesis—fear of hurricanes, coastal flooding, powerful storms, drought, hotter summers; Synthesis—a new law with broad powers to reduce CO2 emissions (and incidentally stop civilization in its tracks—sound familiar?) This one has been a bonanza for revolutionaries. Steps one and two have already been well accomplished, even though many scientists (at great peril to their careers) seriously doubt global warming has anything at all to do with human activity. We stand on the verge of accomplishing step three, which will make the ESA fade almost into insignificance by comparison as a society-molding and –controlling device. Many reputable scientists are convinced that man's contribution to greenhouse gases is so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, but the American public has been conditioned to believe the myth of “global warming” as a man-caused phenomenon. It turns out that 95% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect is caused by ambient water vapor, and this greenhouse effect is an essential function to keep the planet warm enough to be habitable. The other five percent includes 3.6 percent CO2, but only 3.2 percent of that figure is caused by man’s activities, for a total of 0.12 percent of atmospheric CO2 constituting the “huge burden of CO2 the planet carries as a result of man’s activities.” The portion of the rest of the greenhouse gases (methane, nitrogen dioxide, etc) caused by man’s activities contribute infinitesimally small amounts to the greenhouse effect (each less than 0.07 percent). Gun control: (Thesis—guns are causing violent crime; Antithesis—get rid of guns owned by private individuals to stop crime; Synthesis—the Lautenberg/Gonzales bill (S. 1238) is a good start, and has the backing of the Bush Adminstration, whose A.G. reportedly had a big hand in crafting it. This truly draconian (an overused term, to be sure, but here it really applies) law that would allow the U.S. Attorney General to designate individual Americans, without presenting any evidence, as a “terror threat” and seize any weapons they may possess. The law would specifically deny such individuals the right of trial by jury, due process of any kind other than that specified by the law (give up your weapons to Federal agents when they show up at your home), and would even permanently hide from such individuals the “evidence” on which their case determination is based. This would be a dream law to bypass that pesky Second Amendment and disarm law-abiding Americans without compensation or recourse. In the hands of an activist President and A.G., it could be used to make millions of law-abiding Americans helpless in the face of a repressive government, while leaving only the criminal element armed. There are many such examples. Never before has America stood so close to the brink of dictatorship. Let’s hope enough brave individuals will recognize the peril and take a stand! J.Y. Combatant Yes, it is the President who will no doubt abuse this power but it is the initial abuse of power by the Judicial branch that is sanctioning it. Why? There must be an element of extortion in this somewhere. --Will B. Heil Bush I TOTALLY agree with you. My only other comment is that you could have added "Heil Bush" to it. Of course that would have meant that you were an "Enemy Combatant" and would disappear. Keep up the good work!!! --Traci Beyond Repair I appreciate the recent pieces that were posted on LewRockwell.com. Our liberties are being squandered by the current administration and the Congress does not have the spine to stand up to Bush and his minions. Our constitution is being twisted, distorted, and perhaps is beyond repair.
I am a right-leaning libertarian, a former Republican who did not leave the GOP, but the GOP left me.
Keep writing these thought-provoking articles.
Sincerely,
Jay H. Congress Fails To Live Up to Its Duty In "Decision in Philadelphia, The Constitutional Convention of 1787" by Christopher Collier and James Lincoln Collier, written in 1986, at pages 330 and 331 the authors pointed out "There was virtually no other important question on which the Convention was so solidly in agreement as that the power to declare war be exercised by the Congress, and not the president. The president, of course, would have to be able to send the army out to fight off a surprise attack, but these men wanted to give him little more power than that. For example, on August 24, in debating the entirely separate question of what officials the president could appoint, Sherman swiftly moved to modify the language to make it clear that Congress, not the president, would appoint all army officers. He said, 'If the executive can model the army, he may set up an absolute government, taking advantage of the close of a war and an army commanded by his creatures.' Sherman was thinking of James II of England, who 'was not obeyed by his officers because they had been appointed by his predecessors, not by himself,' but it is not hard to find more recent examples in South America, Africa, the Middle East. The change was agreed to without debate. As a consequence, officers in the military still get their commissions from the Congress of the United States." The authors concluded this segment stating: "What, finally, would the Founders have thought of the tendency of recent American presidents to commit troops to battle without formal permission from Congress? They would almost certainly have been astonished and outraged. They were determined not to give a potential tyrant an armed force to use as he wished. Had they seen a president sending troops out on his own in pursuit of his foreign policy objectives they would have taken immediate steps to stop him." John, remember this book was written 17 years before Bush, Jr. dragged this country into an illegal, immoral, unnecessary and wasteful war. In 1848 Abraham Lincoln as a Congressman in a letter to his law partner he wrote: "Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This the framers understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions. The view that Presidents had the authority to go to war destroys the whole matter, and places our Presidents where Kings have always stood." Lincoln long ago foresaw the constitutional implications of the preventive-war policy. On Feb. 15, 1848, explaining his opposition to the Mexican War, he denounced the proposition that if it shall become necessary to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line, and invade the territory of another country; and that whether such necessity exists in given case, the President is to be the sole judge.... "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure. . . . If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don't.' The Founding Fathers resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us." Speaking of the war in Iraq, in a similar situation Gen. Ulysses S. Grant considered the Mexican War as Òone of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. Unfortunately Congress now fails to live up to its duty as clearly outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Sincerely, Norman A. Very Disturbing Dear Mr. Rutherford, I read your article on Bush = Dictator and found it to be very disturbing. There is no doubt in my mind that Bush would not hesitate to take control of our country if given the opportunity. The man has always shown a tendency to disregarded the Constitution whenever it is convenient. I avidly read the Los Angeles times and Wall Street Journal, and did not see any mention of a bill pushed through Congress giving Bush martial law powers. How could this have happened with the Democrats in majority? What is the bill's number and how do I find out who voted for it? One thing missing in your commentary is what we, the ordinary citizens, can do to prevent such a take over? Worse yet, what do we do if it actually happens? Thanks for bringing this out in the open. Sincerely, Bryan C. At What Point Does One Become A "U.S. Person"? Good article this morning. I am 100% opposed to the Military Commissions Act, but there has always been a few questions in my mind. First, at what point does one officially become a "US Person"? At citizenship? At legal residency? At illegal residency? At the point of "tourism"? We cannot, after all, decree that our jurisdiction covers the entire globe. Personally, I believe rights start at our shores. For that reason, guys like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed have no real rights. The 9/11 mastermind has never stepped foot on US soil and is in clear violation of the Geneva Convention for POWs; As an unlawful combatant under Geneva Convention standards, KSM explicitly has no rights under international law. The Geneva Convention was specifically designed to reward those who "fight fair" (lawful combatants) and punish those who do not (unlawful combatants). We must be careful not to overstretch the rights of US persons, or we will dilute our own rights. Nick B. No Such Thing As An "Illegal Alien" Outstanding article. One exception, I understand there is no such thing as an "Illegal Alien". You are ither an alien an inhabitant on the land. I asked this question of the immigration people to point me to the law with the applicable regulations and they, like the IRS would not give me a direct answer. Interesting study if you go to title 8 of the U.S. code, aleins and nationality. Read the "definitions" sections. The regulations are more interesting, including the contextual meaning of words in the "definitions" sections.
Love your remarks about rights for all "men", not just for the select few.
Good stuff.
Raymond M. It Is Clear That America Is In Trouble Thank you for an excellent article. It is clear that America is in trouble. As an avid reader and "watcher" of things political, I have a question.
Even beyond what you describe as a national crisis there is crisis at the local level also. I see a trend, maybe a drastic turn, toward irresponsible, indifferent official action. I mean that they seem to totally disregard the citizens rights at the street level.
Across this land there is official behavior that is punitive an tyrannical without hesitation. School officials who run roughshod over parents and students. Police officers who seriously injure and damage the public without even apology. Courts that refuse even common decency parameters.
I have concluded that there is virtually no risk to the individual officials for misconduct and abuse. Did I miss something?
If a policeman or school official or commissioner or judge has no risk to himself for bad conduct, how will it ever be remedied?? Did we create immunity for officials who attack us?
Daily I read about injury and death, plus lives destroyed with only an "Oh well" in response. Right now there is national story about a missing pregnant mom who is the victim of a police officer with a long history of misogyny and illegitimate children with no official consequences. How are these things possible? When did the good guys become indistinguishable from the bad guys?
It seems too me that if each individual public servant was held to account with prison and economic losses it would be unlikely that "goon-squad" tyranny would continue.
Jim M. Tuesday, June 19, 2007 Ramifications I'm happy to see that I'm not the only one who sees the ramifications of Bush's directives. But by and large you hit the nail on the head, people are under too much FUD to really know what is going on. They also conveniently forget that the price of liberty is the blood of patriots. That is precisely why the second amendment was provided, the authors knew the danger of despots. And George W. Bush and his administration is a clear and present danger to our liberties. --Tony Paris Hilton News? I am grateful to see this comparison come out in print. Thank you! There must be millions of Americans, like myself, who daily search for "real" news. I fought the change of rules in media ownership limits, of appox. three years ago, to no avail. How much blame for lack of needed news coverage can be placed on the change of ownership involving AP-type news-lines? Have you published something on that subject? Where? Please provide an additional article addressing the possibilities of a constitutional American owner or group establishing a new major media tv network--in order that millions of us may find the accurate and worthwhile news we're seeking. --Phyllis Stolen Dear John... What you wrote builds on the argument I've been making to my friends and family ever since the 2000 election was stolen and the PATRIOT Act was passed. It's been a long slow crawl into the abyss and I fear that by the time these powers are used against us en masse, it will be too late to do anything about it. One thing that seems to hold true with Bush - he generally doesn't write legislation that he doesn't intend to use. Could he go as far as to exterminate entire classes of people? I don't know. But why let it go far enough to find out? He should be impeached. And then we should overturn every piece of draconian democracy-killing legislation that he has passed. Thanks for your excellent commentary - I've shared it with my friends and family hoping to continue the wake-up process. --Steve G. Eerie Good article. The eerie parallel between the Reichstag Fire (Hitler's pretext for the Enabling Law suspending civil liberties etc) and 9/11 (GWB's pretext for starting down the same road) has been obvious for a long time. But not to many Americans, it seems... --Peter Thursday, June 14, 2007 Wrong That is truly horrifying. I would never have thought Bush capable of something so seemingly nefarious but I was wrong. Why in the world is this not being paid more attention to? Particulalry since the most media is in opposition to Bush. He's always been portrayed as a buffoon who can barely handle the demands of feeding himself let alone running the country but this would indicate otherwise. He clearly has more street smarts than we thought. The Next President Hopefully those bills/laws/decrees expire when he leaves office and won't apply to the next president. Could you imagine the mess we would be in if Hillary or Obama got ahold of that kind of power. That is scary, it makes me feel that much more at peace that we have someone like George calling the shots, at least for now. I fear life in this country after the next election. --Mike Wednesday, June 13, 2007 Amen Amen, Amen, Amen! You might have added the now eight year struggle to apply basic Establishment Clause jurisprudence to the Navy Chaplain Corps. How many citizens know that military officers are the only segment of the federal government in which you can't get discovery to find out if unconstitutional prejudice has infected a promotion board? Title VII allows discovery for prejudice for civilian government employees, but it does not apply to military personnel. How much space is devoted to the concept that American citizens can be held indefinitely merely because of suspicion they might be terrorists? Fortunately, the Fourth Circuit recently held (2-1) the government could not do that. Will it stand? Let us press on. --Art Work Ethic I just had the pleasure of reading your article Fathers are Heroes. It is a shame that there are not enough fathers like yours around any more. My step-father was one like your father. He immigrated, legally, to the US in 1912, fought in WWI and WWII, tried to sign up for Korea but they wouldn't take him, he was 54 at the time. He instilled the same work ethic in me that your father instilled in you. My children have worked for me and I have been 'accused' of giving my kids an unfair advantage by teaching them the same work ethic you and I were brought up on. Keep writing the truth, it is sorely needed. --Roger A. Dads are Heroes I want to say a hearty thank you and an amen! Although my dad was/is a preacher and true to the faith I remember many such incidents in my life. We sacrificed alot but Daddy was always home at night. And he still always is there for myself or my little brother. I am going to forward your letter to him and tell him that though I'm not a lawyer and our doctrines differ quite a bit. His shadow still is a guiding light. I hope I can be half the father he is. --Michael B. Catastrophe Hmmm . . . What an idea – a major government-initiated catastrophe in late October 2008 . . . Wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest. I am also a little nervous about the confusion about Hitler and the history of Germany. Yes, Hitler was democratically elected. No, the NSDAP did not have a majority in the Reichstag. Yes, Hitler was named chancellor. Yes, he was given dictatorial power by the cabinet and a plebiscite in 1934. Yes, Helen, he did want to take over the world – have you ever read Mein Kampf? Germany began the war in Europe – officially – when they invaded Poland on 9/1/1939. Unoffically, they began the war when German troops occupied Austria and later the Sudetenland and western Czechoslovakia. Helen: there were Jews living in Germany all during the war . . . yes, there were, and they were either hiding or they were slave labor in concentration/work camps or they were awaiting the “final solution” in death camps. And by the way, I don’t hate Germans – some of my best friends were born in and still live in Germany! Back to Bush – I have been nervous about this man since 9/11. I’m not one of the conspiracy theory believers who thinks he was involved in the attacks (I would really hope not), but it has been an excellent excuse for the slow erosion of civil liberties in this country. Do I feel safer? I never felt unsafe! Is it a pain in the a$$ to have to remove my shoes and put my toiletries in little tiny bottles in order to fly on an airplane? Yes! It is so frustrating to be a law-abiding citizen and be treated like a common criminal just because I want to fly to visit my family in another state. The whole idea that Bush has given himself the ability to snatch and grab control of the government scares the life out of me – I am worried that I might see the first breakdown of the democratic process in our nation’s history. So, if this happens, maybe I will travel to the country that has already learned its lesson – Germany! --Kymberli Friday, June 08, 2007 The Best John Whitehead's article, "Jesus and War," is the BEST article (written by anyone) that I have EVER read! Thank you for speaking the truth! Our weak flesh my not always be able to "walk the talk," but when we sound that full of the Holy Spirit, surely, we are! Most Christians think of being a Christian as being pregnant -- either you are are your not. While that perception can definitely be supported, I personally think of our spirituality as a "half- empty or half-full" concept. There are many scriptures that reference being "full of the Spirit;" and, there is likewise one referencing the "poor in spirit." Furthermore, if we "hunger or thirst" for righteousness, we will be "filled." Thus, I pray that the Holy Spirit will sustain Mr. Whitehead. The world needs "peacemakers!" --Anon. Thursday, June 07, 2007 Well Said Dear Mr. Whitehead, While I disagree with you on some issue, I agree with everything you discussed in your “Are the Hitler Parallels Too Close for Comfort?” essay. It is alarming and frightening what this administration has done and what they have been allowed to do. Please continue speaking your mind in your usual thoughtful, rational way. Best Regards, John C. John Wayne Tribute I agree with most of your movie choices for the Duke. The Quiet Man is my personal favorite. My wife and I were in Ireland last summer and I had to make a pilgrimage to Cong in County Mayo where they filmed the movie. Although it's been more than 50 years, the movie is still a major tourist draw. You can still see where many of the scenes from the movie were shot. If you want to pay $500/night, you can stay at Ashford Castle where the cast was housed. If you ever get to Ireland, I highly recommend a day there. Thanks again for a well-written tribute. David M. Wednesday, June 06, 2007 Elected Hitler wasn't elected. Neither he nor the Nazis ever won a national election. Hitler was appointed chancellor after he and the Nazi party pressured von Hindenburg following von Schleicher's resignation. Dictator Being of German descent, I am awed by the consistent and constant labeling of Adolf Hitler as a dictator when he was chosen by the electorate and put into office. He never threatened the world, he only wanted the sections of Germany that had been sliced away from them after WW I. He always said that National Socialism was 'not for sale', that it was for Germany alone. He never threatened to 'conquer the world', and WW II was started when the Brits dropped the first bomb Sept l, 1939. Britain and America were determined to squash Germany as a viable competitor to Britannia! I need you to show where the word 'dictator' ever appeared in German history and where he ever did to the German people what Bush is doing to us. Furthermore, there were Jews living in Germany all during the war. Hitler wanted Germany for the Germans and wanted the people to control their own destiny without being under the heel of financial guru's who did not have Germany's best interest at heart. So much of what we are reading in our history books and so much of what Hollywood produces is fake history. So much for hating the Germans for an entire century...and even today! They have given so much to this country. All the patents that were stolen from them after WW II put America ahead by l0 years in technology and got us to the moon with German Scientists. Why can't these accomplishments be told? I am a proud German-American who loves this country and would like to live to see the truth surface and the record set straight. Yours for truth in history. --Helen Hitler Parallels Thank you for writing what I've been thinking for all too long in this regime. It seems like the Fourth Reich is setting us up, and I wouldn't be surprised if a "catastrophic situation" arose before the election in 2008, making it a moot point. I pray I'm wrong, but it sure does look like that's what this regime has in mind. --Steve B. Jeopardy Your fears and concerns are absolutely understandable and I agree with you, our national freedoms are in jeopardy. We need to be informed, alerted, and protesting regarding the continuing "presidential executive orders". They form a clear pattern of establishing absolute authority with no voice from the people. God Bless, Rod M. Tuesday, June 05, 2007 Statistics I have been a smoker for 12 years - usually about a pack/day. Even during pregnancy, my OB/GYN suggested, not quitting, but merely cutting down and trying "lights" or "mediums," due to an inordinate amount of stress. I praise God every day that my two little girls (now 7 & 6) weren't harmed (so far as has been determined) by my habit. Both were above average in weight & length at birth; neither have suffered an unusal amount of colds or other respiratory distress, nor have either had more than two or three ear infections. Both continue to grow & behave normally; neither have learning or behavioral disabilities, associated with inutero toxins or otherwise. I realize that my situation may fly in the face of statistics, & I understand the fact that chemicals in cigarette smoke have many & varying serious side effects. I don't question alot of the science behind your findings. What I do question is this: Why, if tobacco & cigarettes are so deadly, has our government not simply outlawed its growth and economy? Marijuana growth & distribution is illegal, despite the observation that taxing its use may generate more revenue than tobacco, and, so far as I understand, is much less "lethal" than tobacco. Maybe I'm missing the bigger picture (revenues), but the FDA makes a habit of banning things that kill people - ephedrine comes to mind, as do insecticides like Agent Orange (I forget the proper composition). They even regulate the amount of vitamins & such that we should take daily. I mean, really, is the money that important? Does it make that big of a dent in the national debt? I'm not big on "conspiracy theories," but shouldn't someone be addressing this (or maybe I'm just out of the loop, and someone already is addressing this)? Neither am I big on government control of private lives, but I see that many communities are banning tobacco use in rental apartments, in cars with children riding in them, on hopsital campuses, etc. I'm thinking there could be a conflict of interest somewhere in there. The FDA, federally controlled and funded, claims all these dangers from cigarette smoke. Local, state, and federal tobacco taxes go to build roads, maintain schools & prisons, and so forth. Oh, let's not forget the money that tobacco compainies have been ordered (by federal courts) to pay for funding anti-smoking campaigns. Not for nothing, I am a Christian (evangelical & Southern Baptist, at that). One would assume having the Holy Spirit controlling one's life would preclude such addictions. It would be much easier, however, and certainly more ethical (I think that's a good word for it), if the government would simply either regulate tobacco or ban it all together. I'm of the opinion that, especially for Christians such as myself, illegality would be a much bigger deterent than semi-questionable scientific research that's mostly funded by a federal government that uses tobacco revenues to pay for the research. --Karen B Friday, June 01, 2007 On Smoking--Just One of the Ways Yes, it is I again -- long time no hear, but that's because I've been tapped to buoy friends whose loved ones have been hospitalized with severe trauma. Anyway - to cut to the chase, there is an agenda behind all this -- I'm sure you're aware of that. Statistics have not fooled anyone, because those who smoke really don't give a darn -- those who watch them disintegrate do, but then, they are reduced to prayer in the long run. Let's face it, sir -- the agenda IS THE ONE WORLD RELIGION - THE NEW WORLD ORDER OF THINGS. 'They' - whether you call them the demonized New Agers or just plain devils disguised as responsible human beings in ALL walks of life -- are committed to their goals of eliminating most of the world's current population figures, no matter how long it takes. (Of course, the quicker the sooner.....) Most walking-around types haven't a clue to this crazed mentality -- they just will not listen to such drivel; they haven't ever since the first expose of such fanatically-organized evil back in 1983. But when a populace is Diabolically Disoriented big-time, only the few escape, courtesy of God's grace and heavy prayer, I think. The Plan has been, is, and will continue to be, sweeping removal of 5 billion human beings (rough numbers), no matter how: it simply MUST BE and WILL BE DONE, period. When you consider along with your horror about deliberate smoking repercussions, the chem-trail spraying which has been photographed and documented (for the few who will read); the alteration of our food supply; the capability of HAARP to alter the jet stream and therefore control our weather, with all the obvious remifications thereof; not to mention the open borders we seemingly just cannot seem to control (thereby letting in diseases known and unknown which this nation had long since eliminated through costly and intense measures), along with the deliberate dumbing-down of the masses through controlled 'education' systems -- does it take a genius to see the planned results already bearing fruit? If what we breathe, eat, drink is going to render human life untenable, who cares about careless and obstinate addicts to smoking? I hope you are well enough informed to realize I am not 'blowing smoke'......could you please bone up on these relatively unknown items and let your readers learn how to focus on REAL fear, here, before it is too late? Even the Godless have a concern for their miserable lives -- could you frighten them a little, perhaps? Good luck --jje Would They Have Listened to Him? Do you think, perhaps, that a larger-than-life figure such as John Wayne, star of the silver screen (for whatever that's worth) might possibly have been able to stare into the cameras and reach out to his millions of fans were he to have been accorded the precious time to deliver in his inimitable fashion the urgent messages this fallen civililzation so depsperately needs today in order to return to the days when men admired the loveliness of women and they the strength of good men? When good was applauded and sought after, and its opposite booed and hated and marked for extinction? When table manners were taught to rebellious children by loving parents, and one only left for school properly attired so as to be distinguishable for who and what they were supposed to represent? When marriage meant family commitment, and engagement a respectable period of discernment? When men did the heavy work, and their women happily let them? And on..... Yes, I think old Duke could have made some of us listen -- just having him stare directly into your eyes and give you a lesson would have flattened many of us into the backs of our seats, by golly --- too bad he had to die so soon, before he could wean himself off the killers that were made into part of his personna. Hooray for Good Old Hollywood, manipulators extraordinaire, and killer of so many in more ways than one. Down with adulation of so-called 'stars' -- yesterday, today and always -- and up with those who live their own lives loving God and thereby their fellow man. THAT is what I'd love to hear the Duke tell his audience! I think he could pull it off like no other! --jje Broke The system of our federal government is so broke that the normal voting process will never fix this mess. We have have a industry called "professional politicians." They are corrupt to the core. They are not religious nor do they care about spiritual things that will lead to eternal life. Somehow we have got to get the liberals on both sides of the isle off the backs of the middle class in our country. Somehow we must have a "third party" that is strong enough to through the bums out. The National Democratic Party is a domestic terrorist organization without a doubt. No Christian can be a democrat and be acceptable to God. Ciao, Morris B. Athens, Alabama (USA) |
Archive June 2004July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010
|
||
 |
|||
| The Rutherford Institute P.O. Box
7482 Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482 Phone :: 434.978.3888 (8:30 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern) | Fax :: 434.978.1789 General Inquiries:: staff@rutherford.org | Legal Assistance:: tristaff@rutherford.org Technical comments :: webmaster@rutherford.org ©2007 The Rutherford Institute | Privacy Info |
|||
